When I saw your piece Logansrun, I was going to emphatically shout NO! They were deists. As I began to read I no longer felt the need to shout. Ive known forever that they were deists, and what deism is. Your quotes from the main conspirators (wink) in the founding documents really lay it out though. As does your bibliography. You are almost as good a writer as I am a cheesecake eater. :D
Again, because a couple of people seemed to miss the point, some of the founding fathers were christian, some were not. The documents though are most certainly not christian. It is interesting that some believe the principles there were founded on Judeo-christian principles. This is so far from the truth. Christianity is not just what is in the protestant bible. The developement of christianity is entirely anti freedom and it has been resistance to those concepts early christianity brought that created documents like our constitutions, the magna carta. Although some of these documents have had a religious veneer, the facts are their establishments came in direct defiance to ancient christian themes.
By legislating and not simply claiming that the state has no interest in regulating religion is a step to high moral ground. Christianity was indeed a part of the culture of Europeans, but not all Europeans were Christian. And when we consider that Jesus stole the beatitudes from Buddha..well Christianity ain't all that original in itself. So let's say that the United States has legislated itself as free from religion and our nation is striving towrds throwing off the yoke of patriarchy...AMEN.
This is an interesting comment and something, which while off topic I want to comment on. Especially the jesus stealing comment. Buddha stole them from previous christs. Krishna most likely. Who stole them from yet earlier Christoses, Horus most likely. Who probably stole them from yet other Christoses. The mythology (sacred traditions and stories) of the Christs is ancient beyond the records of history that we have in our public possession currently. Throughout the world, in diverse places and times, there is a consistent thread of story, moral, dogma, tradition, divinity, miracle, and history, real or fabled. It is duplicated in all of the patriarchies. It is also duplicated in those societies that are closest to matriarchies.
The historicity of all of these Christs, male and female, is dubious at best. In the least we have to admit there is absolutely no secular verification of their existence from the time that they are purported to have existed. This includes the verification of Buddha, Siddartha. Please note that I said verification "from the time that they are purported to have existed." It is true that anywhere from one to many centuries after they are claimed to have existed, documents exist, either as claimed copies of documents written in the said time, or documents of those living long after, that while they are not believers in the special, they do believe in at least the existence of the person called Christ, Buddha, Krishna and so forth. Just as an atheist today may believe that jesus actually existed. However their belief in his existence, though not his son-of-god-ship, is not evidence of his existence.
I can state reasonably that the evidence for both Buddha and Jesus is lacking. That is in their persons. However, the originals of both, the followers, taught in the form of Gnosis. Which, in part is a teaching that the Christ is not literal, but symbolic or spiritual. Thus Jesus didnt steal from Buddha nor the other way around. They are both simply reflections of a tradition that reason hands us. It is reasonable for instance to treat people nicely, with the expectation that you also will be treated nicely. It is the social contract. This is entirely asside from deity and without need for deity. The imposition of deity upon a moral code is entirely unnecessary for the development of a viable and just moral code that is fair for all. Only when control is added to the mix to cause people to act contrary to their natural and reasonable inclinations (shunning for instance or sexual desire) is religion and deity required.
And that with a patriarchy or matriarchy. Havin said that I am a feminist. Though some will deny.
Thank you again for your excellent post Logansrun.
